Walker v D'Alessandro - [2010] VSC 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 4840 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of Order 54 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005

and

IN THE MATTER of the estate of IVY ROSALIND MARY PUMP, deceased

BETWEEN

SHIRLEY RUTH WALKER ALAN JOHN PUMP and JENNIFER KAYE LOECHEL	Plaintiffs
and
CLEM D'ALESSANDRO (who is sued as executor of the estate of IVY ROSALIND MARY PUMP, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 February 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 February 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Walker & ors v D'Alessandro
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 15

---

EXECUTOR’S COMMISSION – Solicitor acting as Executor – Fiduciary duty – Full disclosure required before informed consent to Executor’s Commission.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S Newton	Bridgedrenenlegal
For the Defendant	Ms C Sparke	Littleton Hackford & D’Alessandro

HIS HONOUR:

Ivy Rosalind Mary Pump (“the deceased”) died on 8 April 2007. By a Will dated 27 July 1999 she appointed two solicitors Mr Clem D’Alessandro and Mr Garth Reese-Hackford as executors and trustees of that will (“the will”).

Probate of the Will was granted to Mr D’Alessandro on 9 August 2007. Mr Reese-Hackford renounced probate.[1]
[1]Exhibit SRW 1.

Apart from a minor bequest the estate was disposed of by the Will as follows:

“2.I DEVISE AND BEQUEATH the whole of my estate to my Trustees UPON TRUST to pay my debts funeral and testamentary expenses and to hold the balance then remaining UPON THE FOLLOWING TRUSTS:
…
b)to pay the rest and residue in equal parts to such of them my brothers DOUGLAS PUMP and LEONARD PUMP in equal shares absolutely.

3.I DECLARE that if either of my said brothers predeceases me leaving a child or children living at my death then in that event such child or children of such deceased brother of mine shall take and if more than one equally the share which his, her or their parent would have taken had such parent survived me and attained a vested interest.”

Douglas and Leonard Pump predeceased the deceased. Between Douglas and Leonard they were survived by six children, three of whom bring an application under Order 54 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules. The Summons on Originating Motion seeks the following orders:

1. That the agreement of the beneficiaries consenting to the Defendant’s request for Executor’s Commission of 3% be set aside and declared unenforceable.

2. That the Defendant provides an itemised account of the legal fees incurred in acting on behalf of the Estate.

3. That the Defendant make application to this Honourable Court for executor’s commission, if any, he is entitled to.

4. Such further or other orders or directions as this Honourable Court considers just and equitable.

5. That the Defendant pays the plaintiffs’ costs of the application.[2]

[2]Without abandoning any potential orders that may be made under proposed Orders 4 and 5.

In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Walker v D'Alessandro

Details

AGLC: Walker v D'Alessandro [2010] VSC 15
Case: [2010] VSC 15
Decision Date: 5 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker v D'Alessandro arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute was between the appellant, Walker, and the respondent, D'Alessandro, who was appointed as the executor of the deceased's estate. The central issue was whether D'Alessandro, who was also a solicitor, had breached his fiduciary duty by not fully disclosing certain matters before obtaining consent to act as executor. The fiduciary duty of full disclosure is paramount to ensure that the executor's actions are transparent and that beneficiaries can make informed decisions regarding the acceptance of the executor's commission. The court was tasked with determining if D'Alessandro's conduct met the required standard of disclosure and whether this omission constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The legal issues centred on the nature and extent of the fiduciary duty owed by an executor, particularly a solicitor acting in that capacity, to the beneficiaries. The court needed to ascertain whether D'Alessandro had adequately disclosed all relevant information that might influence the beneficiaries' decision to accept the executor's commission. Furthermore, the court had to determine the consequences of any breach of fiduciary duty, including whether the executor's commission was validly obtained and if any financial compensation was due to the beneficiaries.

The court found that D'Alessandro had indeed breached his fiduciary duty by failing to make full disclosure of certain financial matters before obtaining consent to act as executor. The court emphasised that a solicitor acting as an executor must ensure that all relevant information is disclosed to beneficiaries to allow them to make an informed decision. The failure to disclose these matters constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. The court ruled that the executor's commission was invalid due to the breach of fiduciary duty, and the beneficiaries were entitled to compensation for the losses incurred. The court ordered that D'Alessandro compensate the beneficiaries for the amount of the executor's commission.

Orders